DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
Specification
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda Eri et al (JP 2022083219).
With respect to independent Claim 1, Takeda Eri et al discloses the limitations of independent Claim 1 as follows:
A warehousing shelving unit, comprising:
a first bracket configured to be disposed on a support surface; and (See Pars. 0015-0018; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), "first bracket"(shown but not numbered), "support surface"(shown but not numbered)
a support part comprising at least one first support structure, (See Pars. 0015-0018; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 5(first support part)
the first support structure being disposed on the first bracket along a first direction, (See Pars. 0015-0018; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), "first bracket"(shown but not numbered), Y(first direction)
wherein the first support structure has at least two case placement modes, (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0021; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 22(placement mode), Y(first direction), S(placement mode), M(placement mode)
in each case placement mode, the first support structure is configured to support a plurality of cases of a same size, and (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0021; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 22(placement mode), Y(first direction), S(placement mode), M(placement mode)
sizes of cases corresponding to any two case placement modes are different. (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0021; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 22(placement mode), Y(first direction), S(placement mode), M(placement mode)
With respect to Claim 2, which depends from independent Claim 1, Takeda Eri et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 2, Takeda Eri et al discloses as follows:
The warehousing shelving unit according to claim 1, wherein the support part comprises a plurality of first support structures, (See Pars. 0015-0018; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 5(first support part)
the plurality of first support structures are arranged on the first bracket at spacings along a second direction, and (See Pars. 0015-0018; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 5(first support part), X(second direction)
the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction. (See Pars. 0015-0018; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 5(first support part), X(second direction)
With respect to Claim 3, which depends from independent Claim 1, Takeda Eri et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 3, Takeda Eri et al discloses as follows:
The warehousing shelving unit according to claim 1, wherein the size of the case comprises at least a length of the case in the first direction. (See Pars. 0015-0019, 0021; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 22(placement mode), X(second direction)
With respect to Claim 4, which depends from independent Claim 1, Takeda Eri et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 4, Takeda Eri et al discloses as follows:
4. The warehousing shelving unit according to claim 1, wherein the support part further comprises at least one second support structure, and (See Pars. 0015-0019; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 5(first support part), X(second direction)
the second support structure and the first support structure are arranged on the first bracket at a spacing along the second direction, (See Pars. 0015-0019; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 5(first support part), X(second direction)
the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction; and (See Pars. 0015-0019; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 5(first support part), X(second direction)
the second support structure has a case placement mode. (See Pars. 0015-0019; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(support structure), 22(placement mode), X(second direction)
With respect to dependent Claim 8, Takeda Eri et al discloses the limitations of dependent Claim 8 as follows:
A warehousing system, comprising
at least one first shelving unit and a warehousing robot, the first shelving unit being the warehousing shelving unit according to claim 1; and (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0023; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 3(warehousing robot)
the warehousing robot being configured to transport a case to the first shelving unit or transport the case away from the first shelving unit. (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0023; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 3(warehousing robot)
With respect to Claim 9, which depends from dependent Claim 8, Takeda Eri et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 and Claim 8 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 9, Takeda Eri et al discloses as follows:
The warehousing system according to claim 8, further comprising at least one second shelving unit, (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0023; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 3(warehousing robot)
wherein the second shelving unit comprises a second bracket and at least one third support structure disposed on the second bracket, (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0023; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 3(warehousing robot)
the third support structure has a first case placement mode, and (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0023; Figs. 1, 2; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 3(warehousing robot)
the first case placement mode corresponds to a first size. (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0021, 0023; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 22(placement mode), Y(first direction), S(placement mode)
With respect to Claim 10, which depends from dependent Claim 9, Takeda Eri et al teaches all of the limitations of Claim 9 which are incorporated herein by reference. With respect to Claim 10, Takeda Eri et al discloses:
The warehousing system according to claim 9, further comprising at least one third shelving unit, (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0021, 0023; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 22(placement mode), Y(first direction), S(placement mode)
wherein the third shelving unit comprises a third bracket and at least one fourth support structure disposed on the third bracket, (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0021, 0023; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 22(placement mode), Y(first direction), M(placement mode)
the fourth support structure has a second case placement mode, (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0021, 0023; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 22(placement mode), Y(first direction), M(placement mode)
the second case placement mode corresponds to a second size, and (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0021, 0023; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 22(placement mode), Y(first direction), M(placement mode)
the second size is different from the first size. (See Pars. 0015-0018, 0021, 0023; Figs. 1, 2, 3; Ref Numerals 21(shelving unit), 22(placement mode), Y(first direction), S(placement mode), M(placement mode)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed. The following is the Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance with respect to Independent claims 11 and 13:
Independent Claim 11 recites limitations that include the following:
A warehousing shelving unit, comprising:
a stand;
a first support member arranged on the stand along a first direction, the first support member having a plurality of storage locations,
the plurality of storage locations comprising a plurality of first storage locations arranged along the first direction and a plurality of second storage locations arranged along the first direction,
the first storage location and the second storage location having different sizes along the first direction, and the first storage location and the second storage location occupying a same area of the first support member; and
a plurality of first identification members arranged on the first support member,
the plurality of first identification members being in a one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of storage locations. These limitations, alone and in combination with the other limitations in the independent and dependent claims, were neither found, nor taught or fairly suggested, in the prior art of record.
Independent Claim 13 recites limitations that include the following:
A case storage device, comprising
at least one processor and a memory,
the memory is configured to store computer-executable instructions; and
the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, so that the at least one processor performs:
acquiring target size information of a to-be-stored case;
determining a target storage location in a shelving unit based on the target size information, the target storage location being a storage location corresponding to the target size information,
the shelving unit comprising at least one first shelving unit, the first shelving unit comprising a shelf and a plurality of first identification members arranged on the shelf,
the shelf having a plurality of storage locations,
the plurality of storage locations comprising a plurality of first storage locations arranged along a first direction and a plurality of second storage locations arranged along the first direction, the first storage location and the second storage location having different sizes along the first direction,
the first storage location and the second storage location occupying a same area of the shelf, and the plurality of first identification members being in a one-to-one correspondence with the plurality of storage locations; and
controlling a warehousing robot to transport and store the to-be-stored case to the target storage location. These limitations, alone and in combination with the other limitations in the independent and dependent claims, were neither found, nor taught or fairly suggested, in the prior art of record.
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In the alternative, one or more of these claims may be incorporated as further limitations into the respective rejected independent base claim from which they depend. These allowable claims would make the rejected independent base claim allowable because the rejected base claim would then contain subject matter that was neither disclosed nor taught or fairly suggested in the prior art of record.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the reference as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the reference in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Randazzo whose telephone number is 313-446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and 8:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 571-270-3415. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights